Actually, the notion of "Meta-Physics" in the Enformationism thesis was specifically intended to fit into a monistic view of the world. Notice all the "&" conjunctions in the definition below. The ultimate unity of all dualisms is what I call The BothAnd Principle. It connotes a Holistic view of the world, as symbolized in the Yin/Yang concept. Personally, I think that my definition of Meta-Physics should be productive for reconciling the dueling dualities (metaphysical memes) that are dividing our polarized world. :cool:it is not that I think it studies unreality, it is just that it is counter productive to use the term metaphysics as it implies a reality beyond physics, it connotates a dualism view of the world. — Raul
The BothAnd Principle — Gnomon
No. The Enformationism thesis is not a Scientific Theory; it's a Philosophical Thesis. On the other hand, it is a sort of Theory of Everything, which retro-dicts that, given an intentional First Cause, the evolution of the world would be essentially just as scientists have found it to be, via their empirical investigations.Let me put it differently, is your Enformation or your theory of consciousness able to do any kind of prediction? Like general relativity does or like quantum mechanics does? I mean a kind of "test" to proof your theory is adding epistemic value. I think the answer is not, this is why I say it is just descrptive. — Raul
Many years ago, I lost faith in the Bible. But I still couldn't dispense with the logical necessity for what I later learned was the philosophical First Cause. Since then, all I've learned about Science and Philosophy has confirmed that early intuition.I see, you work on your intuitions that tell you that a G*D is needed and I understand you're not a scientist, right? basically you have put together a good movie. — Raul
Thanks for offering your "honest" opinion of my personal worldview. But, if you were interested enough to actually read the Enformationism thesis, you would find that it is anything but a "potpouri" of random ideas. Instead it is a carefully reasoned step-by-step hypothesis based on a cutting-edge scientific concept --- that everything in the world is a form of Information --- leading to the logical conclusion that the world itself must have had an Enformer. It is not presented as an empirical scientific fact. And it's not pretending to be an academic philosophical theory. As the website says, "it's not something to believe, it's something to think". If you don't like the way I think, think-up a thesis of your own. :cool:Ok, so this just confirms what I said, Your theory is a potpourri of ideas very descriptive of your own pop-movie.
No epistemic value, no consequences or implications for anything. I'm sorry Gnomon, I'm being intellectually honest, don't get too attached to this theory. Try to get new sources and new perspectives, not trying just to be right in what you say but listening to the novelties,the epistemic progress.
Contemporary times are great for this, you never get bored — Raul
new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma. :joke: — Gnomon
I agree. That's why I base my cutting-edge philosophical thesis on cutting-edge science, both Empirical and Theoretical. But I try to avoid the dogmatic stance that is known as Scientism.The contemporary philosophy has to go in hand with science and it helps it making progress as well as sense explaining the cultural and epistemic implications of scientific discoveries. — Raul
Where did you get that absurd idea? That assertion sounds like another baseless put-down of something not understood. I don't think you intend to be a Troll, but you're beginning to make wild accusations. Are you offended by the notion that everything in the world is a form of EnFormAction?You're basically dreaming on going back in history to the times when people were following the dictates of Asclepio? — Raul
I like that analogy, and I take it literally. I suspect that the reason scientists and philosophers find Consciousness to be the "Hard Problem" is that they think in terms of physical Quanta, and ignore meta-physical Qualia. But Generic Information (EnFormAction = energy + intention) is both : Everything in the world is a form of Information. For example, the word "information" originally referred to the contents of a Mind : immaterial Ideas. But then Einstein equated amorphous "Energy" with the quality called "Mass", which is how we quantity Matter. Around the same time, Shannon showed how mental Ideas could be converted into physical changes in Energy ( 1 = positive ; 0 = negative ) in order to transmit ideas from one Mind to another. Hence, Information can take on a variety of manifest forms, from measurable Quantitative Matter to imaginary Qualitative Mind, known only via the sixth sense of Reason. Therefore, it seems that the invisible stuff we label "Energy", may be the same stuff that causes the Qualia we call "Life" and "Mind".The qualia of life is consciousness — Pop
Where did you get that absurd idea? — Gnomon
Everything in the world is a form of Information. — Gnomon
Shannon showed how mental Ideas could be converted into physical changes in Energy ( 1 = positive ; 0 = negative ) in order to transmit ideas from one mind to another. Hence, Information can take on a variety of manifest forms, — Gnomon
BTW, what is your personal worldview? Can you summarize it in a few words? :smile: — Gnomon
Information is inseparable from energy and matter. — Pop
I like that analogy, and I take it literally. I suspect that the reason scientists and philosophers find Consciousness to be the "Hard Problem" is that they think in terms of physical Quanta, and ignore meta-physical Qualia. — Gnomon
Reading through this paragraph I have the impression you don't understand what information is. Do you have a definition of information? I'm curious because is clearly different from the one we find in wikipedia, so I'm curious. What is information for you and what is not information for you? — Raul
Information is the fundamental element informing energy — Pop
Will you please explain to me how you interpreted that quote to mean that "You're basically dreaming on going back in history to the times when people were following the dictates of Asclepio?". I don't see the connection. Are you inferring an advocacy of Spiritualism?From the following paragraph you sent above:
" My thesis is not intended to provide empirical value to scientific knowledge of the material world. Yet, it is intended to add some "epistemic" value to the philosophical understanding of immaterial Mind. The "proof" of that added value may not be known, until a new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma — Raul
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information. — Gnomon
So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world. — Gnomon
In John Horgan's interview with Koch, he summarized the IIT theory : "It depicts us as nodes in an infinite web of information, a cosmic consciousness that is pretty close to God, the God of Spinoza if not the Bible". That's similar to my worldview, but I insist on making a distinction between Information as the essence of Energy, and Information as the essence of Mind. As I see it, the Big Bang Singularity contained no mental phenomena, but only Potential for the eventual emergence of Consciousness. So, I disagree with the New Age notion of conscious Atoms. They do exchange Information in the form of electrons (energy) that are gained or lost or shared. But I don't see that as awareness in the human sense.Impressions like these lead me to a panpsychic understanding. I think this would be roughly consistent with how Koch, and Tononi would also see it. — Pop
What word would you suggest in place of "Materialism", as the opposite of "Spiritualism"? Are you a Materialist or Spiritualist or Other?Since 19th many theories have come, materialism is an stereotyped word you keep using and that is the proof that your Enformation comes late and adds not epistemic value. — Raul
Obviously, you have completely missed the point of the Enformationism thesis. It is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. I do explore the wisdom of the past, such as Aristotle's categories. But I don't accept any pre-scientific notions about the physical world as authoritative. Yet, I do think that pre-scientific sages were not idiots, as you may assume, but merely doing their best to understand How & Why the world works as it does. Modern Science does a good job of the "How", but struggles with the "Why". Hence the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness remains unsolved to this day. At least, a few of us, like Pop and Gnomon, are trying novel approaches, rather than repeating the same old failures of the past. :wink:Your claims are basically going backwards, traditional spiritualism disguised with a pseudo scientific approach (Asclepio's times). — Raul
I don't find that term in a Google search. Is that your own private personal worldview?My worldview in few words? I consider myself a natural-cognitivist. — Raul
Apparently, you bow to the authority of the priests of Science, and don't trust your own reasoning ability. Yet, you claim to have a personal worldview. Did you just snatch it out of the air? On what authority was it based? What cognitive steps led to that personal belief system?I'm not one of those that tries to create a theory and think it is the cutting-edge theory because I'm not a professional philosopher, I'm not a scientist so I don't have access to the latest technologies so it would be ridiculous and pretentious for me to build a theory of the world myself. Are you a philosopher or a scientist? — Raul
Information is thefundamental element informing energy and matter, thus informed energy and matter propagate the information that gave them form. Everything is composed of information, energy and matter, where E=m. To ask what is not information reveals your level of understanding. — Pop
You should not include the concept you're defining within the definition itself. :confused:
I think you better read the professional definition for example wikipedia's:
Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty...
One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink: — Raul
I don't find that term in a Google search. Is that your own private personal worldview? — Gnomon
, it not build theories of the world? — Gnomon
Have you ever come across anything that has no information? - Tell me about it! :rofl: — Pop
A system full of uncertainty has information of its uncertainty. It is not 0 information. — Pop
It is not good you try to impose a view when you don't even have the basic education to understand concepts like information. — Raul
Given your rudeness, it will please me to leave you chasing your tail by asking you to provide an example of something with 0 information. Good luck, and please don't reply until you have found such an example. — Pop
They do exchange Information in the form of electrons (energy) that are gained or lost or shared. But I don't see that as awareness in the human sense. — Gnomon
So, I think PanPsychism is based on a Spiritual worldview — Gnomon
Information per se is the potential for Change, and for Meaning. But, Energy is the actual cause of change. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.